The inspection [of LCWR] had been urged above all by some cardinals of the United States, both of the curia and residential [i.e., those who live in Rome], with direct knowledge of the "problematic" orientations of the LCWR.Cardinal Franc Rod, prefect of the congregation for religious until the end of 2010, had given the go-ahead to a rather hostile apostolic visitation of the LCWR. But after, on January 4, 2011, he was replaced by Brazilian cardinal Joo Braz de Aviz, a focolarino [member of the Focolare movement], and even before that, when the American Redemptorist Joseph W. Tobin became secretary of the same congregation, the apostolic visitation continued and concluded in a much more conciliatory manner.This changing of the guard at the top of the congregation for religious was not at all to the liking of the cardinals from the United States residing in Rome at the time Levada, Raymond L. Burke, James F. Stafford, Bernard F. Law, John P. Foley so much so that none of them attended Tobin's episcopal ordination at Saint Peter's Basilica on October 9, 2010.

That's extraordinary. On Magister's telling, those American cardinals were so disappointed with the decision to appoint Tobin -- an outsider who didn't want the job and freely admits to "ranting about the curia" -- that they couldn't be bothered to attend his ordination to the episcopacy. (I wonder who attended Cardinal Law's 2004 appointment as archpriest of St. Mary Major. His retirement ran silent.) Imagine their surprise when soon after a nun was appointed undersecretary for the congregation -- and one who doesn't usually wear a habit, just like those troublesome LCWR nuns. Those American cardinals must have seen the writing on the wall. Under new management, the apostolic visitation of the LCWR seems to have gone precisely nowhere.

Unlike the doctrinal investigation, which was run by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Levada. As Mickens explains, the CDF had been looking into the LCWR for quite some time:

By the late 1990s, [conservative U.S. bishops] began taking their complaints about the sisters to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome. The CDF, under the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, even issued a doctrinal warning against the organisation in 2001, though the last remnant of a more conciliar group of US bishops was able to stave off any direct Vatican intervention.The saga entered a new phase in 2005 when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope. He quickly appointed the then Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco to his old post as CDF prefect. Significantly, the soon-to-be Cardinal Levada was also chairman of the doctrinal committee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). According to sources in Rome and Washington, his successor at the conferences doctrinal office the then Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut was the man who formally petitioned the CDF to launch the current doctrinal investigation of the LCWR. Cardinal Bernard Law, who was forced to resign as Archbishop of Boston in 2002 because of his perceived mishandling of the clerical sex-abuse crisis, was reportedly the person in Rome most forcefully supporting Bishop Loris proposal.

Both Cardinal Law and Archbishop Lori (he was appointed to the prestigious see of Baltimore in March) have long supported womens religious orders that have distanced themselves from the LCWR. Cardinal Law, 80, staffs his residence in Rome with the Mercy Sisters of Alma (Michigan) and Archbishop Lori, 61, helped set up several traditional communities of sisters during his tenure in Bridgeport (2001-12). All these communities, marked by their loyalty to the hierarchy, belong to the Conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR), which broke away from the LCWR in 1992.

Incidentally, Cardinal Law was a member of the Vaticans Congregation for Religious when it launched its own visitation separate from the CDF investigation of womens communities in the US. According to news reports, that project was at least partially funded by the Knights of Columbus, a wealthy fraternal order of Catholic men for whom Archbishop Lori has been supreme chaplain since 2005. Under the leadership of an influential Washington lawyer and former Reagan White House official, Carl Anderson, the knights have increasingly backed conservative causes and routinely make sizeable donations to the Holy See.

How sizable? According to its 2010 tax filing (.pdf), the Knights of Columbus donated about $1 million to the Vatican. But the Knights of Columbus doesn't cut checks just to Rome. In 2010, the organization gave close to $2 million dollars to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. And it donated $25,000 to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is spearheading the legal challenges to the contraception mandate; and $50,000 to the Federalist Society. It will be interesting to see the 2011 totals. (Of course, the Knights of Columbus also donate generously to humanitarian relief efforts.) But back to Mickens:

Mr Anderson is a member or consultor of several Vatican offices, and one of the five-man board of directors for the so-called Vatican Bank. His close association with the Vatican and Archbishop Lori, and the archbishops own determination to bring the LCWR into line, should not be underestimated.After appointing Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo (Ohio) to conduct the initial phase of the controversial investigation of the Leadership Conference, the CDF has now asked Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to lead phase two. He heads a three-man team (which includes Blair [and Paprocki of Springfield Illinois]) to reform the organization or, in the CDFs sanitised words, to implement a process of review and conformity to the teachings and discipline of the Church.

Gee, when you put it that way, it almost sounds fun. Mickens concludes: "This is the Vatican team entrusted with reforming the LCWR -- three men considered to be rising stars in the American hierarchy. Each has said he has accepted the mission for the good of the church." That sentiment was echoed by Santa Fe Archbishop Michael Sheehan, who recently explained that while some people have had a tough time understanding Vatican decrees, including the imposition of the new translation of the Missal and the censure of the LCWR, accepting them "is a small price to pay for our unity with our mother church."

Perhaps Archbishop Sheehan is on to something. American Catholics have not forgotten how long it took bishops to wake up to the sexual-abuse crisis they created. And now they see that the Vatican took just three years to determine that it had no other option but to put 80 percent of U.S. nuns -- whose average age is seventy-four -- into receivership, an effort led in part by Cardinal Bernard Law. That decision has unified a good deal of Catholics all right -- against Rome.

Comments

The hubristic statement of the week:" --- while some people have had a tough time accepting Vatican decrees, including the imposition of the new translation of the Missal and the censure of the LCWR, accepting them is a small price to pay for our unity with our mother church. "And he actually thinks that these examples of Vatican interference will actually foster unity? If you consider "unity" to be represented by an ever-increasing body drain from the world-wide Catholic Church, he's right.

Grant Gallicho: Hold on! When you write of a good number (not "deal") of Catholics being united against Rome, have you taken conservative American Catholics into account?When I was in the Jesuits in the 1980s, the pope and Vatican intervened to take over the Society of Jesus.In all honesty, I do not recall hearing any Jesuit say at that time that he was thrilled by the intervention of the pope and the Vatican. However, I would not be surprised if there were some conservative Jesuits somewhere who were thrilled by the intervention of the pope and the Vatican.So here's my point to you, Grant: The pope and the Vatican do undertake interventions from time to time.Now, I've read the CDF's critique of the LCWR. The criticisms are small potatoes.So what did you expect?

"This is the Vatican team entrusted with reforming the LCWR three men considered to be rising stars in the American hierarchy." Rising stars, of course. Both Sartain and Paprocki are among the ten bishops on the newly formed, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty.

Sandro Magister tells us that the brother of Mother Mary Clare Millea, who was the appointed apostolic visitor for the Vatican investigation of U.S. religious women, is Msgr. William Millea, an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State, who serves as a master of ceremonies for papal Masses. Now we know how she got the job. She knows people in high places! Nepotism?

Absent Christian charity, one might say this whole episode cries to heaven for vengeance!That said, we are witnessing the increasing number of Vatican actions motivated by fear of change. Is the Roman Church imploding?Are we now undergoing Reformation II?Hot damn, these are exciting times!!!

"This changing of the guard at the top of the congregation for religious was not at all to the liking of the cardinals from the United States residing in Rome at the time Levada, Raymond L. Burke, James F. Stafford, Bernard F. Law, John P. Foley so much so that none of them attended Tobins episcopal ordination at Saint Peters Basilica on October 9, 2010."How petty. And this is what we have in Church leadership. Boo hiss!

The dire reality is that the Vatican and American bishops miss it completely that the CDF is hardly relevant and that doctrinal edicts do not move people. Thomas Farrell, your example more than limps. The nun imbroglio impacts like the pedophilia crisis. Here is but one example of what is going on all over. http://ncronline.org/news/global/austrian-parish-listens-priest-none-rec... people need is vision not people like Law harassing others while seeking personal justification. We are in a Catholic world which is keenly aware that the leaders continue to lose it. Most crucially they have no idea how much they are sinking. The Titanic, at least, was built well. The Vatican/bishops structure is falling even before hitting an iceberg or encountering a torpedo.

Bill Mazzella: I asked Grant Gallicho if he had considered the views of conservative American Catholics. It sure sounds like you have not.The CDF critique of the LCWR is no big deal. It's just the conservative pope and the conservatives in the CDF acting the way conservative Catholics act at times -- petty, as Helen was allowed to put it. (Grant Gallicho deleted from my message my most charitable characterization of the Catholic bishops, just as he has deleted one of my earlier messages characterizing the Catholic bishops.)Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is a conservative Catholic, as are the other Catholic bishops. There are many conservative American Catholics who cheer on Benedict and the CDF when they do things like the recent intervention with the LCWR.

"How petty. And this is what we have in Church leadership. Boo hiss!'Well, they don't have wives and (supposedly) girl friends with which to fight. No kids to lord it over. Petty jealousy rises to an ecclesiastical game of thrones.

To all you Vatican watchers out there:1. Who proposed James Tobin for his current job? 2. How can we get that person anointed as nominator-in-chief for all new bishops and all posts to be filled in the Vatican for the next 30 years?

Wow, is that right? The average age of LCWR-affiliated nuns is 74? Does not such a complete failure to attract vocations suggest that maybe, just maybe, some of these orders could you a bit of help in understanding their vocation? Just asking... I find striking is that many commenters year seem positively convinced that when he Vatican says they want to help, start a dialogue etc. they are clearly LYING because what they want is just to affirm their OPPRESSIVE POWER. On the other hand, help will come from Ms. Marx and some of the other distinguished speakers at the LCWR annual conferences!What is a stake here is really whether we believe that the Holy Spirit is at work through the apostolic institutions of the Church (in spite of the possibly horrible flaws of the human beings involved) or not.

Carlo Lancellotti: When I read that number (74), it was described as the median age, not the average age.As you may know, the median age of 74 would mean the mid-point of the ages of the sisters represented by the LCWR. Roughly half the sisters would be over 74, and half under 74. Of course one or more than one could be exactly 74, so I use the qualifier "roughly."As you may know, in the United States, women usually live longer than men do, at least in terms of statistical averages.Just to be clear, I earlier posted a statement that Archbishop Sartain had stated publicly that he sees this intervention as an opportunity for dialogue. It remains to be seen how well he will live up to his statement about dialogue.I. for one, am fully confident in the ability of the leaders of the LCWR to stand in there and carry on a dialogue with him and his two fellow bishops.Nevertheless, I have also stated that Sartain and his two fellow bishops will prevail in the intervention because they hold all the power. Let me now qualify my statement a bit. Those three bishops will not have the final say because anything they work out will also have to clear two Vatican offices, one of which may very well play a very supportive role toward the LCWR. That also remains to be seen. The other Vatican office, the CDF, will undergo a change in personnel in the near future when Cardinal Levada retires. It remains to be seen who will replace him.

"a small price to pay for our unity with our mother church."A pretty telling notion of unity, isn't it? Not even obedience is a matter of "payment," much less unity. Only a modern, liberal individualist would see unity in terms of an economy of wills. Being in unity--one body--happens only through learning, the sole path to being of one mind. The student whose teacher expects rote agreement in exchange for payment, no matter how "small" and figurative, eventually finds out only that the teacher doesn't really want her to learn.

Stephen McKenna: Let's be careful here. In oral cultures, rote agreement is what teachers expect of students. Even in our universities in Western culture today, we as students first need to learn the basics of a given disciplines -- we need to be able to state in our own words what the basic points are that we have learned, to show that we have learned the basic points, rather than nothing.

Carlo, I think your comment has alot of truth: perhaps, just perhaps, it is the Holy Spirit acting. It may not be a certainty, but it definitely has a positive probability. Some seem to forget that this process started years ago. The LCWR had plenty of chance to adjust course on their own and for whatever reason did not. And they can still refuse to change; that refusal has a consequence - their relationship with the Church as defined by the Vatican - which seems appropriate. Even children learn that decisions have consequences...Btw, I saw a group of the Sisters of Life recently. Seemed there were about 70 of them at an average age of about 35. FWIW, here is how they describe a vocation:A vocation is not, contrary to what we sometimes hear, a career that one chooses; neither is it about our plans to do good, or to serve others as efficiently as possible. It is important to distinguish a desire to do good work or to grow closer to Jesus from a life-calling that demands our very essence given in love to the Lord.

I attended the ordination of Archbishop Tobin, C.Ss.R. I have known Joe for almost 40 years now. Yes it true the Cardinals were not present for Joe's ordination. But the first Mass celebrated at San Afonsos in Rome, Cardinal Law was present and joined in the celebration with the new Archbishop along with a very large Redemptorist Community. It was clear from the very start the good friendship with Law and Tobin. I even had a good conversation with the Cardinal at our table. So I think that maybe you need to rethink some of your ideas on this subject.

Re: Alan C. Mitchell 05/03/2012 - 4:51 pm John Allen, scooped by Magister and Mickens, is now on the bandwagon with his customary Vatican shill http://bit.ly/IJRG1J.Alan Mitchell took the words right out of my mouth. John Allen needs a byline ID as PR counsel for all things Vatican.Mickens is really the one who connects the dots with various links among the cast of characters.Brother Luke: please read the Massachusetts attorney general investigation of Law and Law's depositions to understand what criminal child endangerment and distorting the truth involves. www.BishopAccountability.org Start with his abuse of confessional secrecy by imposing a seal on a survivor never to speak to anyone about the abuse he endured. The survivor was at the funeral of the perpetrator when he quietly told Law what happened, whereupon Law swore him to secrecy. The man has blood on his hands, IMHO.Look at his decision to put a rapist back in ministry even though the priest abandoned the mother of his child who had collapsed in drug-induced unconsciousness and died later that night. Law's very first concern: scandal. Not the death of the woman, or the child's welfare, but the priest's soppy letter saying he would be fine in another parish because no one would ever find out. So, he was reassigned. But the judge eventually ordered documents released. Please read them sometime.BTW, I am told Law is the de rigeur prelate for Americans like Tobin to meet when in Rome (don't ask me why), and I am sure Law is a good conversationalist and sparkling dinner companion.

[A] small price to pay for our unity with our mother church, says Archbishop Sheehan. But what if this is a moment when the emphasis should be on challenging the church, and even on not obeying it? Such moments have occurred before. One person who recognized that was Joseph Ratzinger. Paul Knitter heard him say this at a press conference in Rome in1963, during the Vatican Council. Knitter, who teaches at Union Theological Seminary, said that Ratzinger told us that throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church it has happened that the bishops so lost touch with the message of Jesus that it became incumbent upon the laity to exercise their prophetic role given in Baptism and to stand up and refuse to obey. http://unionindialogue.org/paulknitter/2011/03/15/kung-ratzinger-vs-bene... for losing touch with the message of Jesus, Knitter refers to a quote from Terry Eagleton: It's hard to think of a historical movement which has more squalidly betrayed its own revolutionary origins [than Christianity]. Knitters response:

The squalid betrayal is real. But so are the revolutionary origins of the church. Im committed to the hope that the origins are stronger than the betrayal. To paraphrase St. Paul: Wherever there is an abundance of sin, there is an even greater abundance of grace.

"What is a stake here is really whether we believe that the Holy Spirit is at work through the apostolic institutions of the Church (in spite of the possibly horrible flaws of the human beings involved) or not."I don't believe this action by the Vatican is the work of the Holy Spirit at all. Nor do I believe it is the work of the Spirit that our Church is currently being run by a small group of men who aggressively and consistently exclude women from leadership.Maybe it is the Spirit, though, that is moving Catholics everywhere to stand up and say, enough of this, we need to change this Church so becomes what Jesus wants it to be.

"When I was in the Jesuits in the 1980s, the pope and Vatican intervened to take over the Society of Jesus."Is that the incident with Father O'Keefe? Father O'Keefe was on the Board of Directors of a neigborhood group I worked for in the Bronx in the late 80s. He seemed just the nicest man and they would have been very lucky to have him running the order.

I could not agree more with the characterization of John Allen's work...the bishops and the Vatican should be paying him a fat salary for all the spin doctoring he does for them. Very disappointing.But back to the main issue here: speaking to my fellow Christians, I will tell you that the more these men behave this way while all the time insisting that it is God's plan for them to be in charge of everything as the only "authentic teachrs of faith and morals," the more I begin to doubt the goodness and providence and mercy of God. If I had a chance, I would tell them this to their faces. They are a scandal, and a disgrace to the Gospel (which they apparently do not read much). They are driving people away from the Lord. My heart just aches.

I for one would be very grateful if someone would describe a useful definition of the word "conservative". I agree the word "liberal" attempts a reach so broad it is near impossible to define. However, I believe conservatism's worthy attempt to enlarge its tent is not being done with sufficient attention to one of its most recognizable attributes and its often greatest challenge, a near obsession with details. Irrepective of language it is easy enough to agree upon the notion and the reality of a ball. Conservatism, not so much. Does not conservatism find contrived ignorance, outside of humor, an expression of something that could be more than a little worrisome? From the point of view of a conservative, ignorance on the other hand, is quite often merely an opportunity for change or a thing easily enough avoided. Obviously I am describing attributes as I see them. As for a useful definition I really do not know and my lack of understanding contributes to my inablity to follow all these remarkable discussions.

Carlo: Bishops screw up, just like the rest of us. Exhibit A: the sexual-abuse scandals here and abroad.I do not believe Carlo claims the hierarchy is incapable of sin. Everyone, including the hierarchy up to and including the pope, sins. But dealing with a crime and sin in the workplace of the Church is fundamentally different from teaching on an issue of faith and morals. Using the former to undermine the latter is a disservice to all.

I don't see that Allen's story warrants the vitriol being directed at it (and him). To my reading, it seems to cover a lot of the same ground as Mickens and Magister; it synthesizes those two reports and adds some more detail. I don't see it as some sort of apologetics. It reads as straightforward reporting to me.I suppose these background stories are mildly interesting, but I don't find any of the revelations terribly surprising. The idea to launch an investigation had to come from somewhere. Did anyone doubt that the impetus would have originated with Americans, who after all are the ones who are most likely to be aware of, and affected by, the LCWR's activities? If the LCWR has the issues and problems that the CDF's report describes, that would be the case whether it was Americans, Canadians or ancient Phoenicians who instigated the investigation.

Bruce: In reply to your two comments:- "But dealing with a crime and sin in the workplace of the Church is fundamentally different from teaching on an issue of faith and morals. Really? Tell that to the victims of the abuse and their families. So, our actions are not teachings as significant as our words?- Using the former to undermine the latter is a disservice to all."A disservice? I would say it is really pointing to a credibility issue.

Despite the usual best face from Bruce, Jim and even worse, Carlo, it's clear that the rightist US heirarchs played a major fole in the "PR diaster" discussed here already.What did you expect?My own bishop (Abp. Sheehan) when I first came to Nm seemed to be a moderate , but has continually shifted to right.e proclaimed his good friendship with Cardinal Law, was a big pleyer in Steenson's coming over to the Romans and heading up the ordinariate, has issued a number of pastorals that are to say the least by the book, etc.There is so much intertwining of who gets ahead in the hierachry game and how protected loyalists are (as we've seen in thew phily discussion.)I think the future of the US Church is rather grim given the leadership people in place.Then there's their political interventions.....

Isn't a point that the LCWR acknowledges that the traditional approach to women religious is in fact aging, and is not likely to recover its vitality as currently organized? Hence the exploration of alternative ways to organize women to carry out their spiritual and philanthropic mission -- including organization that might be outside of the formal organization of the Church. Isn't that at least part of what this is about? Just asking.

Helen,What is your argument? That because the hierarchy made a mistake, even a criminal mistake, in the sexual abuse scandal they forfeited their credibility on every other issue? Under that regime, no human has any credibility ever because we have all made mistakes, some egregious.My point is that unless you believe the magisterium has been given a special charism to teach faith and morals by Christ and the Holy Spirit then, it seems at least to me, there is no particularly rational reason to believe the creed or any dogmas of the Church. Further, Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit becomes empty.So I believe it is a disservice to impinge the magisterium's hopefully God-guided actions in areas of faith and morals with its acknowledged and accepted failures in human activities. On the other hand, if you want to argue that the Vaticans human understanding of the faith and morals of the LCWR is mistaken that might be a fruitful area of discussion. But the fact that the nuns are involved in good works does not in any way define their view of faith or morals.

Bruce, they made not one mistake but systematic "mistakes" consisting of ignoring the victims and putting the clergy first. They showed callousness but also dishonesty, hypocrisy, and lack of integrity in general. Those faults are also pertinent when reacting to their statements on faith and morals. For example, on women's or family issues, I fully expect them to ignore people's suffering and callously overlook their needs when making a judgment of applied ethics. I also expect them not to say what they think but whatever seems most suitable. I am not even convinced any more that when they talk about, say, the resurrection, they honestly, in their heart of hearts, believe what they are saying. There's a long-standing habit of sweeping problems, doubts, questions under the carpet, and pretending that all is well. Of course there is a way forward for them. The way forward is for them to rebuild credibility from scratch, by their words and by their actions. They have to figure out what they truly think and believe, and they have to go by that without being afraid, come what may. In 2009 Pope Benedict wrote to the bishops of Ireland: "Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. " (Obviously, we're still waiting on decisive actions, honesty and transparency.)Haven't you noticed the outpouring of support on the rare occasions when a member of the church hierarchy unexpectedly shows some integrity? We are waiting with keen expectancy for a leader whom we can trust. That's the way forward. At this juncture I think that it is a singularly bad idea to talk of imposing penalties, to voice threats, and to govern with a heavy hand, before rebuilding some credibility. That's not the way forward.

ClaireThank you for your most recent post. I believed you have captured the sentiment of many Catholics today who have experienced this cumulative effect of the bishop's lack of effective leadership. They have come to the point where now they can only insist on their authority, but when that authority is not expressed by means of credible pastoral approaches to problems in the Church, they have given up any right to govern in that way. As Benedict himself has said, leadership also comprises the activity of the Holy Spirit on the Church faithful, the sensus fidelium. If the hierarchy does not listen to what the faithful say, the faithful are less inclined to listen to them. As you say, the way forward now is to rebuild trust.

Bruce:I would be the last person to deny a truth of our faith even if taught by some bishops and priests, who have acted so egregiously. (St. Augustine of Hippo would not approve.) But it seems to me that there is another sense to the word, credibility, that is, worthiness to be believed. Have these authoritative messengers of the content of the faith, shown themselves to be worthy of being believed?

Claire,Your expectations are just that, your expectations. They may or may not materialize. Personally, I find it quite demeaning when someone else acts on their assumption of what I might or might not do.Btw, my personal experience and observation of Cardinal Dolan is that he is the leader you can trust.

Helen,I think the 'worthy of being believed' about faith and morals comes with the position precisely because of Christ and the Holy Spirit, not because of the humans involved.On the other hand, prudential judgements of how to deal with the aftermath of sexual abuse do not have the same promise.I have no idea why God choses to lead his Church this way. From a human perspective, I generally agree with you. But for some reason unfathomable to me, Christ chooses to operate in this manner and I choose to trust Him. So for faith and morals, I'll follow the magisterium.

Grant:"Carlo: Bishops screw up, just like the rest of us. Exhibit A: the sexual-abuse scandals here and abroad."Obviously they do. But I see no reason to constantly interpret their actions in the most negative possible way (as suggested by the words "crackdown", "taking over" etcetera). Everybody around here seems perfectly certain that their concerns are purely disciplinary and never pastoral.

CarloI think you are very naive about how the Vatican works. You probably do not know that at the present moment there is a serious power struggle going on in the Roman Curia. In part, it was manifest in the debacle over the finances which Archbishop Vigan tried to reform, for which he was unceremoniously shuffled off the the US to be Nuncio. The crackdown on LCWR may also be another manifestation of it as Mickens and Magister have reported on the conflict between Archbishop Tobin and the American prelates, who have influenced CDF to undertake a reform of the group. The Pope has lost control of his curia and only recently has decided to try to regain control by cracking down on Caritas Internationalis and the German bishops. I believe he may be a bit late and I suspect that people in the Vatican are already looking for his successor, with whom they hope to have better luck. These are men with huge egos exceeded only by their ambitions. It would be nice to think of a role for the Holy Spirit in all this, but I doubt that she can squeeze in among the competing egos. Even Benedict was honest enough, after orchestrating his own election, to admit in an interview that he did not think that the Holy Spirit actually picks the person who becomes Pope, but rather oversees the whole process. Decisions in Rome are largely political and then announced as pastoral.

Claire,I assume your expectations are well-grounded. That still makes any expectation about the future a learned guess at best. People change and they act differently in different circumstances. Your expectations cannot predict that change or forecast that future.

The CDF came down on the LCWR using "evidence" collected from the organization's website. Perhaps guileless as doves, the nuns were touchingly transparent on that site, posting material one commenter at dot.commonweal rightly observed made him feel as if he were eavesdropping on a private conversation. Not surprisingly, the CDF hardly seemed to recognize the nature of the genre on which they were basing their critique. Their preferred M.O. is so different: Do everything important in executive session. Create a public record of what you have done that will satisfy the demands of your superiors and protect your own backs now and in all conceivable future situations. No need to waste time on focus groups and sharing sessions, as your marching orders have already been given to you from above. Certainly no need to admit in public that some members of your own group might, along the way, have on occasion said things to which certain audiences of a different cast of mind might take exception.

"Wow, is that right? The average age of LCWR-affiliated nuns is 74? Does not such a complete failure to attract vocations suggest that maybe, just maybe, some of these orders could you a bit of help in understanding their vocation?"I venture to guess, but wouldn't know where to find the states, that the age of the average Catholic in the pew is one heck of a lot older than it was 40-50 years ago. Does not such a complete failure to attract and retain younger members suggest that maybe, just maybe, this church could use a bit of help in understanding its lack of attractiveness to younger people?